Discursive Processes that Foster Dialogic Moments : Transformation in the Engagement of Social Identity Group Differences in Dialogue

-

-

This interpretive case study identifies discursive processes that support the emergence of transformative dialogic moments in the engagement of socially and historically defined group differences. Social construction and communication theory as well as relational theory provide the theoretical grounding for this research. Building on Martin Buber's definition of dialogic moments (1958), and more recent writings from Kenneth Cissna and Robert Anderson (1998; 2002), dialogic moments are defined when meaning emerges in the context of relationship...and when one acknowledges and engages another with a willingness to alter their own story. McNamee and Gergen (1999) described the transformative process as "first transforming the interlocutors' understanding of the action in question...and second, altering the relations among the interlocutors themselves." The methodology used to collect the data was an appreciative cooperative inquiry, an integration of the principles of appreciative and cooperative action inquiry. The participants in this study were members of two pre-formed groups whose purposes were to explore their social identity or collective group differences. One group was exploring faith issues and included 18 women from different denominations of Christianity and Judaism, and from the Muslim and Bahá'í traditions. The other group's members were organizational development consultants exploring issues of race and gender. There were 8 members of this group including 2 African American women, 2 African American men, 2 White women and 2 White men. One of the White men was homosexual; the other group members were heterosexual. The data consisted of the conversations from two consecutive group meetings. During these meetings, I conducted a guided reflection of dialogic moments from prior group meetings. I met with the participants individually before each group to begin their process of recollection. Individual interviews were conducted following each group interview to deepen the reflection. The Coordinated Management of Meaning Model (CMM) (Cronen, Pearce, & Lannamann, 1982; Pearce, 2001, 2004) and circular questioning (Tomm, 1984a, 1984b) shaped the interviews. CMM also guided data interpretation and analysis. Social identity, empathy, and transformative learning, usually discussed in the literature from an individual, cognitive paradigm were explored from a communication perspective as shared meaning construed in the turns of conversations.